Dr Michael Bassett: Maori, welfare and tikanga

If you are like me and constantly surprised by what constitutes tikanga, you might have noticed an article in the weekend papers about a Maori woman “with limited means”, separated from her late husband, who sought funeral costs from the taxpayer to cover the costs of his funeral. The Ministry of Social Development agreed to pay for the casket and expenses involved in getting it to the burial ground. However, it drew the line at paying another $1,026 towards food for the mourners.

The woman appealed first to the Benefit Review Committee, and when it turned her down, she went to the Social Security Appeal Authority. Chock full of appointees from the last Labour government, it found in favour of the applicant. The taxpayer was then obliged to pay for the wake. The Appeal Authority used a large number of Maori words to declare that a feast was “an essential ritual in the tangihanga process”. No names were revealed. (As an aside, Maori these days seem to be constant beneficiaries from name suppression).

The first and obvious point about all this is that the case seems on the surface to be just another in a long line of extra privileges for Maori that aren’t available to others. The second, and more significant factor, is that the nameless woman didn’t go to hers or her late husband’s iwi for funding. Following the settlement of all bar one of the historical claims before the Waitangi Tribunal, these days iwi possess billions of dollars in resources. Enough to hold regular hui, and sufficient, one would have thought, to ensure that “essential rituals in the tangihanga process” for their members are provided for. No. These days Maori automatically seem to think of the taxpayers as the source of anything they need. What is yours is mine, and what’s mine is my own seems to be the reasoning.

This is precisely what Sir Apirana Ngata warned against when he cautioned the First Labour Government in the 1930s against cash handouts to Maori. He argued they would neglect their own tikanga and become mendicants of the state.

Once upon a time, officials would have treated a request to fund a tangi feast with the derision it deserves. The rules, we were told in the newspaper report, currently exclude refunds for costs that arise from choice, such as flowers, koha, chapel fees, and food. But the woman of limited means, somehow managed to pay for a lawyer who mounted arguments that such strict rules ignored the Ministry’s obligation to honour its commitment as a Treaty partner. Aware that a finding in her favour might be seen as a special favour for Maori, the lawyer looked at international funeral practices amongst indigenous peoples and concluded that many regarded food as essential after funerals, and that therefore all New Zealanders of limited means should be able to pass the costs of funeral hospitality off to the taxpayer. The appeal succeeded because the Appeal Authority found that food is “a vital element in the spiritual and social healing process”.

This is a classic example of the way in which the original purposes of the welfare state get incrementally extended by people who lack common sense, and fail to consider alternative solutions to problems. They resort to thinking the government should provide whatever people want. We are now in a situation where the politically-appointed Appeal Authority has greatly expanded the likely costs for the Ministry unless ministers step in and clarify the rules. As they should.

Will ministers have the guts to do so? Somehow, I doubt it. Will Iwi realise that they should have stepped in and assisted their poverty-stricken member? Were they even asked? This, sadly, is even less likely. Should the foolish members of the Social Security Appeal Authority be put out to grass by the minister? That, it seems to me, is well overdue.

Historian Dr Michael Bassett, a Minister in the Fourth Labour Government. This article was first published HERE